Kumar Dharmasena's slip leads to a repeat of a joke that is wearing thin

UMPIRE Kumar Dharmasena has been ridiculed over the dismissal of Usman Khawaja in the third Test, as Australia seeks an explanation from the ICC.

Usman Khawaja

KUMAR Dharmasena is sitting at home watching the Zapruder video of Kennedy's assassination. "Interesting," he thinks, and rewinds. After a few more plays he rings the Pentagon. "That bullet," he says, "I think it missed."

* A man is in court for stealing a watch. The prosecution offers no CCTV evidence or witnesses and the watch is never found. Judge Dharmasena deliberates and comes to a guilty verdict. “I just thought he nicked it,” he explains.

These and other jokes were doing the rounds as poor Dharmasena came in for ridicule like no third umpire before. Not even Marais Erasmus was subjected to the same vitriol when he failed to reprieve Jonathan Trott for an edge on to his pad in the first Test.

Dharmasena's crime was to opt against reversing the decision of Tony Hill for what seemed a non-existent edge by Usman Khawaja against Graeme Swann.

Kevin Rudd broke off from running Australia to describe it as the worst umpiring decision he had seen. Shane Warne, commentating on television, said it was an “absolutely shocking decision”.

Paul Marsh, the Australian Cricketers' Association chief executive, called for Dharmasena to be sacked and Australia will seek an official explanation from the International Cricket Council.

Ten days of the Ashes have created a crisis. A combination of technology proving to be unclear, and dubious application by officials, has achieved the near-impossible by making the Board of Control for Cricket in India look wise in its refusal to embrace the Decision Review System (DRS).

Umpires appear to have lost faith in Hot Spot. They can be forgiven because Warren Brennan, its inventor, has acknowledged that it is not always reliable in registering edges.

Dharmasena, the former Sri Lanka off spinner, was the ICC Umpire of the Year in 2012. He had two good Test matches at Trent Bridge and Lord's. Yesterday was an aberration. The deeper problem with DRS lies with the procedure, not the human element.

Let us go back to the basics. How can it be right that the same review is determined “out” or “not out” depending on who refers it? Had Khawaja been given not out and England called for a review, then Dharmasena would not have overturned the decision.

How, too, can a ball predicted to be brushing a stump result in a wicket (Chris Rogers at Trent Bridge) when a batsman can survive with almost half of it hitting (Steve Smith overnight)? Again, it depends who refers and what the on-field umpire thinks.

At present, the third umpire must find conclusive evidence that his colleague in the middle is wrong. Things would be so much easier and fairer with a tweak to his terms of reference.

Ask him simply: was that out? The third umpire is then in the same position as his on-field colleague, except that he calls upon technology before his decision. And the batsman, not the umpire, has the benefit of the doubt.

The Times